Please note that the writing so far was done with the able help of
Amy Pearl, who wrote:

I think the missing section on what's wrong with existing systems and
their inadequacies should be no more than one page. The purpose of
this version of the proposal is merely to get them to say whether
they are interested enough for us to pursue this. The section should
be the motivation: as scary as possible to provide them with
motivation and ammunition for pursuing this. It should not be a huge
airtight case against Diebold or DRE vendors.

Please help with this section if you can.

Best regards,
Arthur

At 4:45 AM -0700 5/10/05, Arthur Keller wrote:
>Dear Friends,
>
>Here is the current draft of the proposal concept (white paper) to
>the California Secretary of State.
>
>Your immediate comments are requested. Comments (or brief writeups)
>for the yellow highlighted sections are especially solicited. We
>plan to submit this document to the California Voting Systems and
>Procedures Panel on Wednesday, May 11 (or Thursday, May 12 at the
>latest) for presentation at the VSPP meeting on May 19. We plan to
>submit a full proposal (given SoS interest) around June 1.
>
>Note that while this is a proposal to the California Secretary of
>State, and so the effort is California-centric, I am sure that the
>OVC is happy to work with other states contingent on local funding
>availability. The software and hardware reference platforms
>developed by UCSC will be adaptable to satisfy any specific
>requirements of other states, but UCSC cannot do that with funding
>from the California Secretary of State.
>
>Best regards,
>Arthur